The new Pope has thrown his hat into the ring of domestic Italian policy, calling for Italians to boycott a referendum on existing fertility laws. It was only two years ago that Italy passed these restrictive laws, which mandate that no sperm or egg donation be permitted, and that only three embryos can be created at a time. No screening is allowed, and all three embryos must be implanted at once. Apparently, these laws are hampering efforts to conceive, and was decried by scientists. Also, apparently, this 2003 law declares that embryos have the same rights as human beings, which is interesting, considering that European law does not agree.

There's been a whole to-do about Viagra being given to sex offenders, on the taxpayer dime. How that's relevant to reproductive rights? Policy Issues. Public monies are going to pay for viagra, not only for sex offenders, but for Medicaid reciepients. Since this is public money, there's been, not unnecessarily, public outcry over this use.

Now, of course, let's compare that to abortion, and birth control. Not all states cover abortion, even those deemed medically necessary, under state Medicaid. Some do, under state Equal Rights Amendments to their state constitutions. Most states cover contraception, although to what degree, I'm not sure.

At least one person argues that giving viagra to anyone is a medical decision, and should be left to the doctor. Which is an interesting point. It's what the Roe v. Wade decision was based on - a doctor being able to help the patient make the best decision for him/herself.

So the question is, how can we justify giving Viagra, supposedly medically necessary (I'm not arguing that it's not, I just don't a good grasp on the issue, being that I don't have ED), to people on Medicaid, but when it comes to abortion, even medically necessary, the government can justify not covering it?

If this is, as Jeb says, about family cohesion, how is the law going to impose that? Also, I love that if you've already had kids, then this notification law doesn't apply to you. Because if you're 16 and already have a kid, then I guess we assume you're mature enough to understand what it's like to raise a child; if you're 16 and don't have a kid, and don't want one, it must be due to your immaturity. Lovely. Condescending much?

SCOTUS has granted cert to Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood of Northern New England, regarding parental notification laws. Both the District and Circuit courts held that the parental notification law in New Hampshire was unconstitutional because it did not grant an exception for a minor's health, and that the death exception was too narrow.

Oh, and according to SCOTUSBlog, the first issue in this case isn't the health exception. The health exception is only necessary if the standard of review remains the standard from Casey, rather than the Salerno standard. It sounds like boring legalese, but if the Salerno standard is applied, the petitioners would have to prove that the law is unconstitutional in every conceivable case. The Casey standard is, well, i guess a lower standard, applying the undue burden standard. If the Casey standard isn't upheld, then the health exception probably doesn't need to be there, and most laws that are now unconstitutional infringements on a woman's right to choose could stand.

What with all the talk of women in combat, I thought I'd dig up a little information about women's access to abortion in the military. First of all TRICARE doesn't cover abortion, even in the first trimester. That's even stateside, or for dependents. But what about women deployed overseas? If a woman is stationed in a country that does not allow abortion, too bad for her, even if there's a military hospital nearby. It looks like there's some Senate movement on this.

There are a few stories of women who had fetal demise cases, where the military's not following rulings. In one, a dependent wife had an encephalatic fetus, which the court ordered the military to pay for. It did, but then tried to get the money back. A similar case is Brittel v. US (pdf), which I blogged about last year. The cases are heartbreaking - a woman has a wanted pregnancy, but a fetus with no chance of survival post-birth. Delivery itself could be dangerous. And the military would prefer to force her to carry the growing terminal fetus to term, give birth, and then watch it die?

The Council of Europe has a whole big thing on Equality between the sexes, and Reproductive Choice. If you need anything on repro rights in Europe - from data on incidence of abortion to the rights language - it's here. Pretty cool, eh?

Saletan's series on Slate continues with a discussion of The "Pre-Life Movement". At what point does a clump of cells deserve protection? Does it matter how we got there.

"Maybe the council can explain why something one ingredient shy of becoming an embryo is sacred. But then it would have to explain why a cell one step shy of being transformed backward into an embryo is fair game. "

Are human-like entities the same as humans? Are cells that could develop into humans if not for some genetic mutation human? It's an interesting read.

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) is suing the US Department of Health and Human Services, claiming that abstinence-only education promotes Christianity, in violation of the Establishment Clause. Specifically, the ACLU is questioning the support of the Silver Ring Thing, which is highly infused with religion.

When they harass and torment women who are seeking abortions for reasons of their own, when they attempt to kill physicians who are providing medical assistance to their patients, and when they seek to undermine respect for constitutional government, however, they are acting in ways that violate the basic principles on which this nation was founded, which includes respect for minority rights, without which democratic government becomes nothing more than the tyranny of the majority. Those who promote the "pro-life" position without respecting the rights of others are profoundly unAmerican.

Former Governor of NY, Mario Cuomo, has also recently warned of the tyranny of the majority, when it comes to very private, personal decisions restricted by the courts.

You can read Madison's writings on the topic, in Federalist Papers, No 10, whjch discusses how a republic (rather than a democracy) can better guard against factions. (I guess this was sans political parties?). Federalist Papers, No. 51 touches on the idea of the majority's will encroaching on the rights of the minority.